Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
This case involves a challenge to an order of re-assessment under the relevant tax laws. The key points are: The petitioner failed to submit monthly returns within the prescribed time for the assessment year 2014-2015, leading to an escapement of assessment. The court referred to precedents holding that an assessment cannot be made after the expiry of the prescribed time limit, and that a return must be filed within the time limit for an assessment to be valid. Section 39 of the applicable Act mandates completion of assessment within 5 years from the end of the relevant year. In this case, the assessment for 2014-2015 should have been completed by 31.03.2020, but it was not. Instead, re-assessment proceedings u/s 40 were initiated without completing the initial assessment u/ss 34-37. The court held that the existence of an initial assessment is a prerequisite for re-assessment u/s 40. Since no self-assessment was deemed u/s 35 within the prescribed period, the re-assessment order dated 05.03.2022 and the demand notice dated 08.07.2021 were quashed as illegal and without jurisdiction.
This case involves a challenge to an order of re-assessment under the relevant tax laws. The key points are: The petitioner failed to submit monthly returns within the prescribed time for the assessment year 2014-2015, leading to an escapement of assessment. The court referred to precedents holding that an assessment cannot be made after the expiry of the prescribed time limit, and that a return must be filed within the time limit for an assessment to be valid. Section 39 of the applicable Act mandates completion of assessment within 5 years from the end of the relevant year. In this case, the assessment for 2014-2015 should have been completed by 31.03.2020, but it was not. Instead, re-assessment proceedings u/s 40 were initiated without completing the initial assessment u/ss 34-37. The court held that the existence of an initial assessment is a prerequisite for re-assessment u/s 40. Since no self-assessment was deemed u/s 35 within the prescribed period, the re-assessment order dated 05.03.2022 and the demand notice dated 08.07.2021 were quashed as illegal and without jurisdiction.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
